The ARP vs the LP #3: Health Care

NOTE: As before, the position of the Libertarian Party is taken from their website at www.lp.org/platform

The following is from the American Rights Party platform:

While we generally favor a reduced government, it has become apparent that the profit motive of the insurance industry, and the ancillary industries that are connected to it, prohibits any solution that does not involve government participation. The fundamental right to health is guaranteed and therefore must be provided by either the business entities involved in ensuring it, or falling short of that, the government . To that end, the Party endorses a plan that provides health insurance to the indigent, and reduced cost insurance to those who cannot afford private insurance. While we believe that it is first and foremost the responsibility of the insurance and health care industries to provide services to all persons, we also understand that there has to be some sort of remuneration for those goods and services.

The government option seems like the most viable alternative to a cooperative and responsible health care industry, but even that must have some restrictions. We advocate that the government option be available at significantly lower costs to those that can afford to pay something and to small businesses who can demonstrate that providing health care to its employees is a burden that could force them to either not provide insurance or discontinue business.

Finally, it is the Party's position that it is the health care industry's responsibility to re-evaluate the costs of tests, procedure, fees, and pharmaceuticals and reduce same in accordance with the overall economic health of the country and/or state. The government should hold the industry accountable by requiring justification of costs, for example why a blood test costs what it costs, in much the same way as it requires the restaurant industry to determine nutritional values and contents of the foods we eat.

What follows is the Libertarian platform:

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

If only that worked. I chose this topic tonight because of President Obama's speech on this subject. While I do not believe that he has all the answers, the health care system in this country is completely out of whack. It has been a free market health care system since its inception, and it has failed miserably. Americans pay more for health care than any other industrialized nation yet rank in the mid-teens in healthiness. In proportion, we spend more and get less than any other country on the planet. Health care premiums have doubled in the last 10 years, and there is nothing to suggest that this trend will not continue. The health care industry is beholding to no one, and there is rampant abuse and waste within it

As our platform states, we believe that the industry should be held accountable for costs and should be required to justify them. No insurance company should deny any policy holder treatment for any illness. No insurance company should be able to raise premiums because a person gets sick. And no insurance company should deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

Hospitals and care facilities must also be held accountable for costs and to justify them. Why is a Tylenol sixty dollars? Why does a procedure cost three times in Southern California what it costs in Iowa? Why are the prescription medications that you take at home twice as much when the hospital provides them?

Pharmaceutical companies fail to realize on economic principle that has been true since the beginning of capitalism: volume, volume, volume. If you reduce the cost of your product to a point where you can still make a reasonable profit, more people will buy it and you will actually make more money than if you sell less of it at a higher price. Case in point: There is a particular product that works pretty well for me, and not just for its intended use but in other ways as well. I can't afford it, and it is not covered by my insurance. This particular product is not needed to save or even prolong my life, but it enhances the life that I have. I am 100% certain that if this product were affordable more people like me would buy it.

Doctors must be held accountable for ordering tests or providing procedures. Information about a patient must be able to be shared among all physicians attending a patient. If you can walk in to a Walgreens anywhere in the country and get a prescription filled, why can't the doctor across the hall know what has already been done?

As the platform states, we would love to have the health care industry take the lead on this and keep the government out of it. However, they are too interested in spending millions of dollars through their lobbyist trying to defeat any reforms, especially in light of the huge profits that they reported just yesterday. The national model for greed started with the oil companies and their belief that we will pay whatever they charge for their product rather than find an alternative way to work. They were right, and now other industries are following suit.

The airlines come to mind. My partner and I went to Denver a couple of months ago. Two round trip tickets, one checked bag. The airline charged us $15 for the checked bag. When I asked about this, the clerk told me that for $20 on each ticket, I could have upgraded the tickets and wouldn't have been charged the bag fee. So, for $40 extra dollars, I wouldn't have been charged $15?! Oh, and I would have gotten free Direct TV for my 2 hour flight.

The health care industry has fallen lock step into this mentality of greed. We'll pay what they charge because we have no choice. If you try to switch companies, there is no competitive advantage. And if you, heaven forbid, choose a PPO over their HMO where you actually have a choice of doctors and care facilities, they'll charge you up to half again more.

Since the industry seems unwilling to create their own remedy, so to speak, we see no alternative but government intervention. Ideally we would prefer that they fix themselves, but we do not have any faith that they will do so.

The ARP vs The LP: Gun Control

NOTE: All of the information contained herein that relates to the Libertarian Party was obtained from their website at www.lp.org/platform

The following is the platform of the American Rights Party

As proponents of the Bill of Rights, we support the Second Amendment, with restrictions. The founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen the types of arms now available when they offered up this already limited right( virtually no gun owner is in a sanctioned militia). Therefore, we support the outright ban on assault/automatic weapons and ammunition since their only purpose is in the taking of human life. No sportsman uses and automatic weapon to hunt deer. There is no other application for these types of weapons.

We are not naive, and we understand that banning assault/automatic weapons will not eliminate them. To that end, the elimination of the ammunition used in these weapons ultimately renders them useless. Also, since a large number of these weapons are obtained by people engaged in criminal activity, possession and use of them must carry stiffer penalties than are currently in place. Gun possession is not gun ownership.

Here is the position of the Libertarian Party from item 1.6 of their platform

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights-life, liberty, and justly acquired property-against aggression. This right inheres to the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or sale of firearms or ammunition.

It seems fairly apparent that while we may agree that the Second Amendment must be respected, we most certainly disagree on its implementation. At the beginning of our platform we state, "We believe in individual freedoms and individual responsibility." And while there was no specific mention of licensing, registration, or restrictions in our platform we believe that responsible gun owners would have no objection to at least some controls.

For example, we might not require background checks to own firearms but instead show proof of the completion of a firearm safety and education program. The most dangerous gun user is the untrained one, and usually is responsible for innocent lives being taken. We have had unrestricted gun ownership in our history, and we didn't fare so well then.

The most troubling part of the Libertarian platform though is the idea that the legitimate use of force for the protection of one's life, liberty, and property may also include the assistance from another person or group. They also say the "justly acquired property," but that definition is too broad. Gangs identify and protect their "turf" and can justify it as "justly acquired" since it is the area in which they reside, pay rent, shop, sell drugs, etc. It is justly acquired by proximity. Do we not already see these people engaged in protection of their own life, liberty, and property from rival gangs and the police?

And isn't it apparent that the weapons of choice in these battles are assault/automatic guns? The gun lobby would have us believe that escalating the number of weapons by being able to arm their members with similar weapons levels the playing field. Our position is that it just makes it bloodier, and too many uninvolved and innocent people get caught in the crossfire and injured, maimed, or killed. Banning these types of weapons is the first step. Eradicating the bullets is the second. Let them be used to club one another over the head. At least then only the intended target gets hurt.

In direct contrast to the Libertarians, our support of the Second Amendment cannot come without safeguards to ensure that the ownership of firearms is responsible, controlled, and restricted.

ARP vs LP: Difference One: Abortion

NOTE: All of the information presented here that relates to the Libertarian Party was derived from the website www.lp.org/platform

The following is an exerpt from the American Rights Party platform regarding abortion:

While we believe that abortion should be an absolute last resort and performed only when there is a medical necessity with a second opinion attached for late term abortions, we also support a woman’s right to choose when or if to terminate a pregnancy. To that end, we further support a pro-active approach to sex education in schools as being the best solution in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Parental involvement in the selection of appropriate educational materials and participation in the process of teaching their children about the many ramifications of sex is fundamental to decreasing risky sexual behavior and the associated health issues that evolve from it.

Now, here is the position of the Libertarian Party:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

In my opinion, this really doesn't go far enough to address the issue, and is perhaps a bit too idealistic. Unfortunately, the "good-faith views" that some people hold are far too extreme for there to be no govenmental involvement. Without intervention, there would likely be no clinics or healthcare facilities for women who want and/or need an abortion. If there were no laws to protect the providers, the people who oppose abortion, some already extremist to the point of murdering doctors and bombing clinics, would face no deterrent to their terrorism. And it is terrorism, let us not forget.

It also fails to address prevention of the behaviors which lead to some abortions, and offers no differentiation between an abortion and a late term abortion which I think is important. While we do agree that it is ultimately the choice of the woman, preventing unwanted pregnancies and providing safeguards for late terminations I believe is essential. While government intervention is not the preferred choice of either platform, it is my opinion that it is necessary so that this vital healthcare issue can continue to be provided. Those who oppose abortion will never alter their view. Without legislation to protect the rights of the individual to have an abortion and the rights of the providers to perform them, they would return to the back alley practioners and risk the lives of both mother and child.

The ARP and the Libertarians

Apparently there was a problem getting the words to post. So, short and to the point. A couple of people who have read the American Rights Party platform have asked this question, "Isn't there already a Libertarian Party?" to which I say, "Yes, there is." And while there are a number of simiarities, there are some key differences. The next few posts (and the ones after this one since it didn't post before for some reason) will be highlighting the differences.

As always, please feel free to comment and please pass along the blog address to others. The more people we have participating, the more fun and enlightening this can be.

Thanks, Hamsters and I'll see you on the wheel.

HamsterPrez

The New Party

I have gotten a couple of comments that this sounds suspiciously like the Libertarian Party, and while there are many similarities, I have found some key differences, which I am going to address in a separate blog entry, probably later tonight but perhaps not until the weekend. I am studying LP materials and will address the issue shortly. Your patience is appreciated.

New Stuff

Hey Fellow Hamsters...check out all the new stuff on the blog! Now you can read The Huffington Post, The Nation, and The Week all from here! You can ask and/or answer questions for/from other readers. Get the latest headlines from CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC (we spray to all fields, here!). Let me know what you think, and I am open for suggestions to add other sources, resources, and gadgets.

Here at the Hamster Paradigm, your opinion matters! Thanks.

HamsterPrez

Major Hamster Announcement

No, not from Major Hamster, he's in Washington in meetings with General Dynamic. Or maybe it's General Motors. In any case, just wanted to let all you Hamsters know that coming this weekend will be the outline of a Brand Spanking New Political Party! No funny hats or noise makers required...it's not that kind of party. Since the Republicans have all but dismantled and the Democrats have become the New Republicans, we here at Hamster HQ have decided that it's time for a new third political party and you, loyal Hamsters, will be the first to see it and it is my hope that we will have a discussion/debate over the platform some of which I can almost guarantee will be controversial. Your participation in this process while not required is most certainly invited. Help us hone the new political landscape of America. Remember, this is a grass roots campaign, so feel free to send the link to others in your sphere or realm or cage and let the hilarity begin. This is America, after all, where we legally not only get to do this sort of thing, the Bill of Rights almost demands that we do so. So, sign up as a follower and get your friends/relatives/colleagues to do the same. The larger we become, and the quicker we get larger, the louder our voice will be. Assuming, of course, that anyone agrees with me and/or that we can work out some manageable platform which will appeal to a larger base than the 5 people that are followers of this blog currently. By the way, regardless of the tone herein, I AM DEAD SERIOUS ABOUT THIS! Just so you know. Thanks, and I hope to be talking to all of you and the folks you know soon.

HamsterPrez